Ex Parte Horn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2017

11756642 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/756,642 06/01/2007 Mark David Horn 322815 1178
116344 7590
Joel G Landau
Aerojet Rocketdyne
PO Box 7922
RLB70
Canoga Park, CA 91304
12/29/2017 EXAMINER
SHIRSAT, VIVEK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
joel.landau@rocket.com
nicole.holieway@rocket.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK DAVID HORN1
Appeal 2016-007031
Application 11/756,642
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIEL S. SONG, and WILLIAM A. CAPP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—7 and 9—26 in the present application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134.
We AFFIRM.
1 Referred to as “Appellant” herein. The real party in interest is Aerojet
Rocketdyne of DE, Inc. (Appeal Brief (hereinafter “App. Br.”) 2).
Appeal 2016-007031
Application 11/756,642
The claimed invention is directed to an ignition system for a
combustion device including a resonance driven glow plug (Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows (App. Br. 7,
Claims App’x.):
1. An ignition system for a combustor comprising:
a resonance system;
a resonance driven glow plug heated by said resonance
system, said resonance driven glow plug including a wall having
an inner surface defining an interior of the resonance driven glow
plug and an opposite, outer surface; and
an insulator having an interior cavity in which the
resonance driven glow plug extends, with a gap between the
insulator and at least a portion of the outer surface of the
resonance driven glow plug, the interior cavity being sealed from
the resonance system.
Independent claim 9 is similar to claim 1, while independent claim 14
recites a method of igniting a combustion device, wherein “the interior
cavity” is “sealed from the resonance media.” (App. Br., Claims App. 8—9).
The Examiner rejects various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the prior art as follows:
1. Claims 1—7, 9, 10, 13—15, 18—22, and 24—26 as unpatentable
over Morris et al. (US 4,109,669, issued May 5, 1992) in view of Elvander et
al. (US 6,966,769 B2, issued Nov. 22, 2005), and Yoshikawa et al. (US
2007/0056949 Al, published Mar. 15, 2007).
2. Claims 11, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Morris in view of
Elvander, Yoshikawa, and Kessaev et al. (US 6,199,370 Bl, issued Mar. 13,
2001).
2
Appeal 2016-007031
Application 11/756,642
3. Claim 23 as unpatentable over Morris in view of Elvander,
Yoshikawa, and Kreiner et al. (US 6,381,949 Bl, issued May 7, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by the Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that the Appellant could have made
but chose not to make have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 1—7, 9, 10, 13—15, 18—22, and 24—26 as
being unpatentable over Morris in view of Elvander and Yoshikawa. As to
claim 1, the Examiner finds that Morris discloses the limitations therein
except for limitations reciting that the interior cavity is defined by an
insulator and is sealed from the resonance system (Final Office Action
(hereinafter “Final Act.”) 5). As to the limitation regarding an insulator, the
Examiner finds that Elvander teaches that in a resonance igniter, “the high
temperature environment necessitates the use of ceramic material capable of
high thermal loading [column 4 lines 25—31].” (Id.). As to the limitation
regarding sealing, the Examiner finds that Yoshikawa discloses a glow plug
“where the glow plug element is isolated from its metal outer shell by an
annular gap,” and “the gap is sealed to prevent high pressure gasses from
traveling upstream of the combustion chamber through the gap.” (Id., citing
Yoshikawa 133).
3
Appeal 2016-007031
Application 11/756,642
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 is
unpatentable because:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the resonance driven
glow plug taught by Morris by fabricating the cavity from an
insulating material as taught by Elvander in order to provide a
material capable of high thermal loading. Further, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention to seal the internal cavity taught by Morris as
taught by Yoshikawa to prevent the leakage of high pressure
gasses into the annular gap and then upstream of the
combustion chamber.
(Final Act. 5—6).
The Appellant argues the claims subject to this rejection as a group
(App. Br. 3). Initially, the Appellant argues that “the Yoshikawa reference
is not directed to a resonance type glow plug,” and thus, “cannot reasonably
teach sealing an interior cavity of an insulator from a resonance system.”
{Id. at 3—4). However, the Appellant argues Yoshikawa individually
whereas the rejection is based on the combination of Morris and Yoshikawa.
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In that
regard, we find persuasive the Examiner’s reasoning that like Yoshikawa’s
glow plug,
it is necessary for the resonance driven glow plug taught by
Morris to prevent the high pressure fuel/air mixture in the
combustion chamber from leaking into the environment
upstream of the combustion chamber. Therefore, the sealing
4
Appeal 2016-007031
Application 11/756,642
structure taught by Yoshikawa is applicable to the resonance
driven glow plug taught by Morris.
(Ans. 17).
As set forth by the Examiner, the rejection is premised on applying
the teachings of Yoshikawa to the device of Morris, which includes the
required resonance driven glow plug.
The Appellant also argues that “the gap itself in Yoshikawa is not
sealed” in that “the o-ring of Yoshikawa is located at the opposite end from
the heater 2 and the gases would be coming from the heater through the gap
to the o-ring.” (App. Br. 4, citing Yoshikawa 133 (“an air-fuel mixture
inside a combustion chamber is never released to the outside through the gap
inside the glow plug.”)). The Appellant further argues that “[t]hus, the seal
prevents escape of gases from within the gap and explicitly does not seal the
gap itself from receiving gases in the first place.'1'’ (App. Br. 4, emphasis
added). Accordingly, the Appellant concludes that “even if such a seal were
incorporated into Morris, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have an
expectation that the seal would seal the alleged internal cavity of Morris to
prevent leakage of gas into the alleged annular gap of Morris. ” {Id.,
emphasis added).
The Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because as the Examiner
correctly points out, “the claim only requires that the gap be sealed from the
resonance system.” (Ans. 17). The gases referred to by the Appellant would
be from the torch/combustion chamber, but the claims at issue are not
directed to sealing the recited gap from the torch/combustion chamber to
prevent gas from entering therein, or to precluding the gap “from receiving
5
Appeal 2016-007031
Application 11/756,642
gases” as asserted by the Appellant2 (App. Br. 4). As the Examiner
correctly responds, “the claim does not require that the gap be entirely sealed
at both the upstream and downstream ends, nor that the seal prevent any
gasses from entering into the gap, only that the gap be sealed from the
resonance system which is upstream of the gap.” (Ans. 17). Accordingly,
this line of argument is unpersuasive because it is well established that
features not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability.
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
The Appellant also submits arguments directed to the limitation
reciting “an insulator.” According to the Appellant, “Elvander explicitly
teaches that only those components in the operating environment necessitate
ceramic material that is capable of high thermal loading.” (App. Br. 4).
Hence, the Appellant argues that “at best, the sleeve around the resonance
cavity in Morris would only be made of stainless steel according to the
teachings of Elvander, not ceramic.” (App. Br. 4).
We are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s arguments. As the Examiner
explains, “Elevander [sic] is provided to show that it is well known in the art
to use insulating materials to withstand high temperature environments[ l]ike
those that would be expected in Morris.” (Ans. 18). Contrary to the
Appellant’s assertion, Elvander does not teach that only the resonance cavity
should be made of a ceramic material, but instead, teaches that the resonance
2 To any extent that the Appellant’s argument may be premised on
interpreting the insulator, the glow plug, and the gap defined therebetween
as being part of the recited “resonance system,” we disagree with such
interpretation considering the plain language of claim 1, which recites these
elements separately and distinctly from the resonance system.
6
Appeal 2016-007031
Application 11/756,642
cavity should be made of a ceramic material because of its operating
environment (Elvander, col. 4,11. 25—27). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner’s conclusion that “the walls of the cavity [of Morris] would be
subject to the high temperatures of the resonance cavity operating
environment and be amenable to modification by the ceramic materials
taught by Elevander,” such that the suggested modification would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill (Ans. 18).
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we affirm Rejection 1.
Rejections 2 and 3
The Appellant relies on the arguments set forth relative to Rejection 1
to assert that the Examiner erred with respect to Rejections 2 and 3 (App.
Br. 4—5). Accordingly, because we find such arguments unpersuasive for
the reasons discussed above, we also affirm Rejections 2 and 3.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7